THE
MONEY ISSUE MAY BE THE ESTABLISHMENT'S ACHILLES' HEEL IN ITS WAR ON
"ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM"PART 7 of 7

Dr.
Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
January 11, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

PART
SIX of this Commentary explained what the Establishment and common
Americans might do in the face of adoption by the Islamic world of
gold and silver as media of exchange. Completing that analysis...

E.
Finally, in all of this, average Americans should not assume self-righteous
airs. They deserve to be in danger. And it is their responsibility
to take appropriate action. For, according to the theory of "self-government"
on which the United States supposedly operates, they have brought
all of these perils upon themselves.

1.
A people's accountability for the actions of their government is proportionate
to that government's representative nature. If public officials are
chosen through fair elections, and their powers defined and limited
by a constitution which the people themselves retain the right and
power to interpret, amend, and enforce, then the people are ultimately
responsible for every illegal act that those officeholders perpetrate
in their name and that the people refuse or fail to punish. The principals
must answer for the damages caused by the acts of their agents that
the principals empowered and tolerated those agents to commit.

If,
knowing or with reckless disregard of the facts, the people actively
aid and abet, accede to, applaud, approve, accept, or even acquiesce
in the dishonest and criminal acts of public officials and the special
interests that suborn them, they are just as responsible as the perpetrators.
Perhaps even more so, because it is the people's legal and moral duty,
as well as their own self-interest, to arrest such behavior and arraign
the malefactors before the bar of justice, inasmuch as the people
put the malefactors into positions of power in the first place.

The
Constitution makes pellucid in its Preamble that We the People are
the authors of, and thus necessarily both legally and morally accountable
for, the laws of the United States and their applications and misapplications
by the public officials We the People select to enact and administer
them. So, if We the People stand idly by, while malevolent officeholders
commit criminal acts in their name and under the color of their laws,
their silence betokens consent, their consent imputes guilt, and their
guilt renders them fit subjects for retaliation by the victims of
the officeholders' crimes.

A
blind, unthinking patriotism cannot excuse inaction. A patriot loves
his country and stands behind its legitimate authority. The essence
of America is her Declaration of Independence and Constitution. A
citizen who does not check every act of every public official against
those documents is no patriot, only a chauvinist. No one may hide
behind the plea that he has a duty to support the government "right
or wrong." For if public officials are wrong (in the sense of violating
the Constitution), then to that extent they do not constitute "the
government" at all; their acts are not "governmental" acts but mere
private wrongdoing; and every patriot's constitutional duty is to
oppose them and rectify the situation. Indeed, that people demand
what is right in the face of official wrong is the essence and the
test of true patriotism.

On
the other side, neither can it be a valid reason for inaction that
the present political system is thoroughly corrupt. If it is, who
let it degenerate to that level, if not the American people themselves?
Who allows it to remain corrupt, if not they? And who will ever correct
the situation, if they do nothing?

That
certain individuals in temporary control of the apparatus of the General
Government have launched a global attack against the Islamic world
(and, truth be told, against Islam itself) is no excuse for common
Americans' complicity or inaction. As the first, most important, and
defining principle of constitutionalism teaches, not all acts that
persons in public office may perform are legitimate acts of government.
No electoral mandate, party platform, political policy, or majority
vote in Congress or the Supreme Court can justify a war of imperial
aggrandizement. As the Preamble to the Constitution emphasizes, We
the People delegated powers to the General Government "to provide
for the common defence", not to attack other nations. Indeed, aggression
against other nations violates "the Law of Nations", "Offenses" against
which the Constitution empowers Congress "[t]o define and punish,"[1]
not to approve and facilitate. So, their perpetrating a policy of
international aggression is a sufficient and compelling reason for
removing from office--and, one would hope, prosecuting to the utmost--not
only those who actually put such a policy into operation but also
those who advise, devise, and promote it, as well as those who have
the power and duty to intervene, but stand silently by, watching everything
but doing nothing. That, surely, is the fundamental and fully justifiable
lesson of the war-crimes trials of Nuremberg and Tokyo, which are
now part and parcel of the precedents that make up "the Law of Nations".

Therefore,
if domestic public officials in this country oppress foreigners--and,
on the basis of the predictable consequences of that oppression, then
attempt to subject Americans to the further oppression of a domestic
police state--We the People have a duty (and, indeed, a desperate
self-interest), not to obey them, but to change the personnel in,
or if necessary even to pull down the structure of, the erstwhile
"government"--or be held at least morally accountable before the entire
world. As the Declaration of Independence emphasizes, "when a long
train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide
new Guards for their future security." "[I]t is their duty". Yet what
course of action are far too many Americans following? Resistance
at the polls? Remonstrances to political leaders? Even self-preparedness
for an ultimate day of reckoning with the monetary, banking, and other
crises the Establishment has made inevitable? Or a self-imposed reluctance
to face reality, coupled with retreat into the fantasylands of "sports",
"entertainment", and general hedonism--while continually re-electing
the evildoers or their political clones?

2.
A collapse of the Establishment's Ponzified monetary and banking systems
might strip Americans of their black glasses of willful blindness.
The key qualification, of course, is "might". That vanishingly few
Americans have awakened to their victimization, and identified the
villains responsible for it, suggests that far too many Americans
may never arouse themselves from their self-imposed slumber. Admittedly,
that the Establishment's monetary and banking policies rest on lies,
larceny, and thoroughgoing lawlessness may not be as obvious as that
Pearl Harbor suffered no "sneak attack" or that the cross fire in
Dealey Plaza was the work of no "lone gunman". Nonetheless, the evidence
is accessible to and understandable by every American of average intelligence
who bothers to search the open literature. Indeed, common sense teaches
that the monetary and banking systems cannot be less corrupt than
the total political-cum-economic regime of which they constitute important
parts--and in the nature of things must be expected to be even more
septic, the love of money being the root of all evil.

From
even superficial research, every American can discover the absence
of any truly patriotic "public interest" in this country's monetary
and banking systems. And, just as easily, Americans can uncover the
presence of parasitic special interests, composed of a small number
of identifiable individuals self-consciously organized in families,
groups, corporations, and so on, who originally put central banking
across in 1913, who systematically expanded its powers thereafter,
and who now ruthlessly run it for their and their clients' personal
advantages (and, as a necessary consequence, the personal disadvantages
of everyone else).[2]
Yet, with all this information readily at hand, most Americans have
failed to educate themselves. And the few exceptional individuals
have proven unable, so far, to translate their knowledge into a movement
for monetary and banking reform--proving, once again, that no man
is likely to be taken for a prophet in his own country.

In
historical context, this is hardly surprising. In the last mammoth
crisis of fractional-reserve central banking in the United States--the
banking collapse of 1931-1932 and the Great Depression that the Roosevelt
regime perpetuated until World War II--Americans by the tens of millions
allowed themselves to be deluded, manipulated, and even stampeded
by the Establishment into sinking the vampiric fangs of political
banking and political currency into America's throat even more deeply
than ever before. Proving not only that Experience keeps a dear school,
but also (and more depressingly) that her students rarely learn the
lessons she teaches most emphatically.

So,
if new monetary and banking crises were to occur in the near future,
in the course of Muslims' adoption of silver and gold as their media
of exchange, whom would many Americans be likely to blame? Or, more
realistically put, whom would the Establishment deceive many Americans
into blaming?

On
any moral, political, or economic calculus, no blame should properly
attach to Muslims. All peoples, everywhere in the world, have a natural,
inalienable right to choose whatever honest media of exchange they
desire. And of all contemporary media of exchange, the only ones that
can be deemed as honest as human endeavors allow are silver and gold.
Moreover, Americans' own Constitution requires that their governments--National,
State, and Local--employ silver and gold as their official media of
exchange, to the exclusion of any other. So, Americans cannot possibly
fault Muslims (or anyone else) for using the very media of exchange
We the People themselves have mandated for the United States.

Rather,
Americans should condemn their own erstwhile public officials, and
the special interests that pull those Pinocchios' strings, for leading
this country into such a morass by launching a perpetual global assault
on Islam while America remains vulnerable to the most effective--indeed,
devastating--counterattack Muslims could employ in defense of themselves,
their countries, and their religion.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

The
Constitution provides that "[t]he United States shall guarantee to
every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."[3]
This presumes that what the Preamble calls the "more perfect Union"
of "[t]he United States" will collectively remain "a Republican Form
of Government," too, because the Union consists of individual States
that are each "guarantee[d]" to be of such "Form." No republic, though,
can survive if its ultimate guardians, its people, remain mere dumb
spectators while their own erstwhile "representatives" engage in coldly
calculated, systematic deracination, depravation, depredation, and
demolition of their country.[4]
In this, too, perhaps Americans can learn a lesson, or heed a warning,
from the Islamic world: As the Sunan Al-Nasa'i[5]
recites,

A
man asked the Messenger of Allah: "What kind of jihad is better?"
He replied, "A word of truth in front of an oppressive ruler!"

1,
Article I, Section 8, Clause 10.2,
See M. Rothbard, Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy (1995),
at; [Read]
J. Livingston, Origins of the Federal Reserve System: Money, Class,
and Corporate Capitalism, 1890-1913 (1986); G. Kolko, The Triumph
of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916
(1963); W. Greider, The Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve
Runs the Country (1987).3,
Article IV, Section 4.4,
Just so that no one intent on misconstruing my words can attribute
the promotion of "racism" to me, the reader should understand that
I use the word "deracination" to mean a "detachment from the customs
and traditions of one's country". See Webster's Third New International
Dictionary (1971), at 607. This preemptive explanation would not be
necessary were the political world not filled with people who are
as unscrupulous as they are illiterate.5,One of six leading collections of hadith,
recognized by Sunni Muslims.

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard:
A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts
and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has
practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme
Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases
leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education,
Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America
v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on
the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors,
may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their
employment.

He has written numerous monographs
and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county.
His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces
of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States
Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American
monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under
a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER:
A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash
of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com